New! Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Board

pharmachris

In 2011 I had a 6hr delay in Bahrain as there wasn't a plane available on the second leg of the journey. The ticket was booked as single journey (return) from London to Bangkok but both the way out and return showed as two separately identified flights on each leg (ie GF002 and GF 152). On reading the advice I assume and have made a claim for compensation (using the template), this by e-mail to their customer service department. Incidentally immediately after the delay I emailed gulf complaining about the delay and their poor service and never had a reply.
I would like to ask

1. I am correct in claiming compensation?
2. Do to different flight numbers on the same journey make any difference?

111KAB

David_e wrote: »

There was an interview with a deeply unimpressive CAA person on Radio 4 Money Box programme just now (Sat 25 Sep). It'll be on iPlayer shortly I imagine.

Monarch Complaints Facebook Page advises this link >

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03bps1y/Money_Box_Closed_accounts_another_banking_divorce_flight_compensation_Royal_Mail_shares/

with feature starting around 14 minutes into programme.

Caz3121

pharmachris wrote: »

In 2011 I had a 6hr delay in Bahrain as there wasn't a plane available on the second leg of the journey. The ticket was booked as single journey (return) from London to Bangkok but both the way out and return showed as two separately identified flights on each leg (ie GF002 and GF 152). On reading the advice I assume and have made a claim for compensation (using the template), this by e-mail to their customer service department. Incidentally immediately after the delay I emailed gulf complaining about the delay and their poor service and never had a reply.
I would like to ask

1. I am correct in claiming compensation?
2. Do to different flight numbers on the same journey make any difference?

The problem is that the delay you incurred was on a non-EU airline departing a non-EU aircraft.

I am assuming that your flight from London arrived on time and if so I would expect that Gulf Air will either not respond or respond advising you that no compensation was due as the delay was outside the EU

Had the flight from London been delayed (even by less than 3 hours) and that in turn meant you missed your connecting flight leaving you arriving over 3 hours late then you would have been covered as the initial delay was caused within the EU - as per Folkerts case

111KAB

Latest EU note regarding Extraordinary Circumstances......

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT%2BIM-PRESS%2B20130916IPR20016%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0%2F%2FEN&language=EN

Apologies I should have credited Monarch Complaints ....

https://www.facebook.com/MonarchComplaints

with the link!

David_e

111KAB wrote: »

Latest EU note regarding Extraordinary Circumstances......

Maybe they should do something about it!

111KAB

David_e wrote: »

Maybe they should do something about it!

They are but not enough of you are writing/emailing them or at least their local MEP to put pressure on. Unless they realise that people are concerned regarding the airlines/CAA making up their own rules then there is little they will do - MSE is (as far as I am aware) the main avenue for discussion and posters on here are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of legitimate claims.

JPears

Perhaps someone most erudite in letter writing would be kind enough to construct a template for us all to write to our MEP regarding the airlines' abuse of EC and the CAA totally inaction/effectiveness in upholding one of its fucntions - that of protecting the consumer.?

111KAB

A list of UK MEP's......

http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your_MEPs.html

A list of MEP's throughout Europe on the relevant Transport Committee......

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/tran/members.html

Importantly note the Chairman is Brian Simpson.

The guidelines dreamt up by the NEB's (in UK the CAA) in conjunction with the airlines .......

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

It now appears the EU are trying to disassociate themselves from this document via this press release .......

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FTEXT%2BIM-PRESS%2B20130916IPR20016%2B0%2BDOC%2BXML%2BV0%2F%2FEN&language=EN


If you feel strongly the EU/CAA/NEB/airlines should 'get their act together' and recognise 261/2004 then email Brian Simpson (UK Chair of Transport Committee) or your local MEP or your local MP.

traveladdict8

Hi, I had a 6 hour delay with Norwegian in August and below is the reply I got to my letter. I knew the flight was delayed from Oslo toBangkok when I checked in at Gatwick for the Gatwick to Oslo flight - A whole 8 hours before the Oslo flight was due to leave. Am I being fobbed off or should I pursue this....

Thank you for contacting Norwegian. We apologise for the long handling time and thank you for your patience in this matter.

We sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused by the delay to your flight, DY7201 from Oslo to Bangkok on the 14 August 2013. Regrettably, this flight was delayed by 6 hours and 39 minutes due to unforeseen technical failure with Air Bleed System on the wetleased aircraft from HiFly. It was set Norwegian Dreamliner to operate this flight.

We understand that punctuality is vital for our passengers, and Norwegian strives to ensure that all flights operate according to schedule. Regrettably, due to the nature of air travel, delays and cancellations are unavoidable and do occur from time to time.

We can confirm that the technical difficulties experienced on this day occurred during operation and outside of scheduled maintenance. Norwegian follows all maintenance programs imposed by the CAA, and the aircraft manufacturer, as well as internal maintenance procedures. We therefore consider that all reasonable measures were taken to avoid such technical difficulties.

In accordance with the legislations which we are bound by, we are not obliged to provide compensation or cover additional expenses incurred not including that outlined in EC Regulation 261/2004 Article 9 if the disruption was caused by reasons deemed to be outside of our control. Circumstances that are beyond the control of the operating air carrier are events that are not caused by an act or omission of the air carrier. All claims are evaluated according to the guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances from the EU Commission. In light of this information, unfortunately we are unable to honour your request for EU compensation.

We respect that our response may not offer the outcome you were seeking, however we must adhere to certain guidelines to ensure we are providing a fair and equitable service. Should you wish to make a claim, we suggest for you to contact your private travel insurance provider for assistance.

For the avoidance of doubt, we refer to the relevant verdicts found in the European Court of Justice which apply to your particular case.

European Court of Justice – C-402/07 (Sturgeon):
The EC Regulation 261/2004 does not expressly provide compensation for cases where the flight has been delayed as it does in the case of cancellations. According to the decision of the European Court of Justice in case C-402/07 (Sturgeon), the passengers affected by a delay should be compensated under the terms laid down in Article 7 of regulation 261/2004, when they reach the final destination three hours or more after the original scheduled arrival time. The airlines are exempt from further compensation if the reason for the delay is extraordinary circumstances outside the airline's control.

European Court of Justice – C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann):
Judgement C-549/07 (Wallentin-Hermann) is trying to define what can be classified as extraordinary circumstances. According to the judgement, technical problems that are found during the scheduled maintenance of an aircraft cannot be defined as extraordinary circumstances, unless the technical problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the carrier’s activity and are beyond the operating carrier’s actual control. Circumstances that are not inherent in the operation of air services are events that do not routinely occur during the operation of the aircraft.

Should you wish to appeal our decision, you must send your request to the Norwegian Transport Appeals Board (Transportklagenemnda) within 4 weeks of receiving this letter. Your correspondence can be sent to: Norsk Reiselivsforum, Transportklagenemnda, PO Box 2924 Solli, 0230 Oslo, Norway. For more information please visit https://fly.transportklagenemnda.no/Forside/English.

We apologise for any disappointment our response may cause and hope that we may have the pleasure in welcoming you onboard a Norwegian flight when you next choose to travel.

David_e

traveladdict8 wrote: »

Am I being fobbed off or should I pursue this....

My guess is (a).

In referencing Wallentin, they say:

"[FONT=&amp]Circumstances that are not inherent in the operation of air services are events that do not routinely occur during the operation of the aircraft."
[/FONT]
That's just nonsense. The question is what was the event giving rise to the technical issue. The answer, in your case, is normal wear and tear/failure of a component (excluding recalls/manufacturing defects). Wear and tear/component failure is a routine (to use their word) part of the normal operation any mechanical system - including aircraft (Wallentin para 24). It is inherent in the operation of an airliner. It is not extraordinary.

Para 34 of Wallentin:

"... a technical problem … is not … ‘extraordinary circumstances’ …, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control."